Only thing is just like the 7950 not performing better than the 7970 when really over clocked as everyone thought it would at first and turned out it wasn't. You will find the same with the 670 actually not performing as well as a 680 when both are overclocked to thier maximum cores in real world over clocks unlike these reviews.
What you'll find though is a lower price point just like the 7950 that makes it a better price performance card. You pay more premium for the 7970 for little gains. The 670 to be a success will be priced similarly vs the 680 to meet that price perfomance market that dosent nessesarily need the absolute highest performance nor want to pay for it.

There's a less than 5% difference between the 7950 and 7970 at the same clocks from what I have seen, I want to know where you're getting a larger difference from. Max 240W Powertune and slightly worse clocking GPUs are the hindering factors for the 7950.

AMD did the right thing: The difference between a 7970 and 7950 is 15-18%.
Nvidia did the strange thing: The difference between a 680 and a 670 is about 5%-ish
I don`t get it. Perhaps they have a secret plan of removing the 680 from the market, and then reintroducing the "new" 680, $75 cheaper.
"Take that AMD"

I think this "dynamic" boosting that has been introduced by Nvidia, is starting to come around and bite them in the behind... As a 680 owner, I am not at all pleased at the little difference between the 680 and 670, except for the price tag that is...

680 owners, there's really no reason to panic here. The 670 has an entire SM disabled. DISABLED. That's 192 cores less than a 680. Tell me how it's physically possible for the 670 to perform ONLY less than 5% the performance of a stock 680 with an entire SM disabled?

Let's wait a week for more people to get a hold of the 670 and more benchmarks to come out. Right now, it's incredibly hard to determine what information is correct information, because we don't know without a shadow of a doubt what the STOCK clock speed of the 670 is and what might be a FACTORY OC clock speed. That's a huge difference, for example, when we've seen TT with a 915mhz clocked 670, vs. Gigabyte's Factory OC'd 670 at 980mhz. Kepler gets VERY nice boosts even at 10mhz increments.

Not to mention, because of a disabled SM, it's possible that the gpu boost is allowing a higher clock speed boost on the 670 than what a 680 might normally bump up to, unless done so manually, because keeping temps. cool is a BIG part of Kepler's OC ability and dynamic clocking will stop at certain temperature thresholds.

The 680 is going to still come out on top. No doubt about it. I think all of this speculation about how good the 670 is is being blown out of proportion. Yes, it is a ridiculously good card based on what we've seen. And if it drops at $400? Game changer. However, until I see some max OCs on 670s compared to the performance of some max OCs on 680s, there's no reason to panic. I think we'll all see that the 680 will eventually end up on top when all is said and done by AT LEAST 10% or so, and then the pricing debate can begin. But until then...keep your 680s and untangle your panties, folks. Edited by jcde7ago - 5/6/12 at 11:39am

People really, really need to chillax....
680 owners, there's really no reason to panic here. The 670 has an entire SM disabled. DISABLED. That's 192 cores less than a 680. Tell me how it's physically possible for the 670 to perform ONLY less than 5% the performance of a stock 680 with an entire SM disabled?
Let's wait a week for more people to get a hold of the 670 and more benchmarks to come out. Right now, it's incredibly hard to determine what information is correct information, because we don't know without a shadow of a doubt what the STOCK clock speed of the 670 is and what might be a FACTORY OC clock speed. That's a huge difference, for example, when we've seen TT with a 915mhz clocked 670, vs. Gigabyte's Factory OC'd 670 at 980mhz. Kepler gets VERY nice boosts even at 10mhz increments.
Not to mention, because of a disabled SM, it's possible that the gpu boost is allowing a higher clock speed boost on the 670 than what a 680 might normally bump up to, unless done so manually, because keeping temps. cool is a BIG part of Kepler's OC ability and dynamic clocking will stop at certain temperature thresholds.
The 680 is going to still come out on top. No doubt about it. I think all of this speculation about how good the 670 is is being blown out of proportion. Yes, it is a ridiculously good card based on what we've seen. And if it drops at $400? Game changer. However, until I see some max OCs on 670s compared to the performance of some max OCs on 680s, there's no reason to panic. I think we'll all see that the 680 will eventually end up on top when all is said and done by AT LEAST 10% or so, and then the pricing debate can begin. But until then...keep your 680s and untangle your panties, folks.

No, I think you misunderstood it. In that article, they're talking about the reactions to the short length of the PCB. From the top, they're saying it looks like a GTX 680 PCB because it's the same length when you're looking down on that particular Colorful card, which would make sense if it only has one SM disabled then they would use the same long PCB. But then they explain that when they turn it over, it is indeed circumcised, thus lending proof to slightly more gutted hardware than a 680, since they could afford a much smaller PCB (so there goes that one SM and whatever caps/chokes/power phases may have been needed for it).